EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 438
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9496 Posts
On July 10 2018 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote: That's all just not true when it comes to revolutionary struggles. The whitewashing and revisionism of MLK Jr. has a lot to do with why people between 18-40 believe that though Do you have any material (reading or videos) you would recommend on this? (feel free to pm me if its alot) If Centrists are looking for compromise I've said they have the Social Dems, Dem Socialists and so on. But it's them coming left, or losing. Those are their options. I generally agree that the best hope for promoting equality is a leftist coalition involving centrists - . This is true in my country too. This involves compromise and prioritizing on everybody's part though. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22998 Posts
On July 11 2018 00:07 gobbledydook wrote: I'm sure you would like a Proletariat Revolution, because that's what it sounds like. Class struggle, us vs them, and I suppose this leads to mass incarceration of the capitalist scum and labour camps, collective production and then, as history has shown us, general starvation. But if the US is the one embracing socialism who will be the one to bully the world into sanctioning us, arming our neonazis and generally trying to make life in our country suck so we bow to US capitalist imperialism? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 11 2018 00:01 screamingpalm wrote: The Federal Reserve is part of the Federal government. It is a creature of Congress. Monetary and fiscal policy are indeed separate. Monetary policy is the domain of the Federal Reserve, only they can create money. Fiscal policy falls under the Treasury. This is where "borrowing" comes in, but it gets a bit more complex... this is where interest rate targets are set, etc. Banks can only create loans and credit- each with a corresponding debit at the Fed. Once paid off, nets to zero. No, interest rate targets are set by the Fed, not the treasury. The Fed hits its target by buying and selling Treasury bonds. Again - the fiscal and monetary action is separate. The Fed is not buying and selling based upon Treasury issuance - they buy and sell based on their own interest rate targets. The Treasury is working to achieve cash needs for spending. Those are separate actions that can influence each other, but are not directly related. No, banks do not have corresponding debits at the fed on all loans. Banks only hold a small fraction of deposits (reserve requirement) - the rest is lent out, which creates new deposits and new lending. New money created by the Fed is multiplied out in the private sector. No, taxing and spending does not impact the money supply. Taxing and spending influences GDP in that taxes influence private sector spending down (impact is variable) and spending increase government spending category in your GDP accounts. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22998 Posts
On July 11 2018 00:15 JimmiC wrote: I mean it is not like the USSR was not doing the exact same sort of things during the ColdWar for the other side. But also being far worse to its own people. The Right is not evil, the Left is not Evil, but their are Evil people on either side. People need to stop protecting the evil from their own sides and come to some compromises for the greater good. What are you thinking of when you say "the exact same sort of things"? | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On July 10 2018 15:53 Velr wrote: Uhm... I get the outrage about the last supreme court pick that clearly should have been Obamas. But for this one? You voted for a republican President, House/Senate are Republican, a judge retired during this term... So you will get a republican/conservative Judge. Where exactly is the point of attack here? I'm a little with my reply here, but in 2016 Democrats received 51 million votes to the GOP's 40 million, 53.8% to 42.4%. Clinton also won the popular vote by a few million. Democrats were defending 10 seats, while Republicans held 24, but Dems only won two seats. Kennedy pretty clearly retired to let an unpopular President and Congress with as close to an anti-mandate from the people as you can get pick his replacement. And right before doing so, he issued some decisions to help the GOP continue consolidating their control over the government. This wouldn't be much of a problem, except that he's currently the ideological center of the Court. If Garland had replaced Scalia, this wouldn't be an issue. However, the Court is making a hard right shift because the GOP decided to not allow Obama to appoint a new justice. Also, the GOP's rush to get Kennedy replaced ASAP is hypocrisy of the worst sort. We don't expect any better from the GOP, but it's still an outrage. + Show Spoiler + For reference, here's the exact numbers for the last three senate elections: Party | Democrat | Republican | Independent 2012 Popular vote | 49,998,693 | 39,130,984 | 961,282 Percentage | 53.7% | 42.1% | 1.0% 2014 Popular vote | 20,875,493 | 24,631,488 | 705,146 Percentage | 43.8% | 51.7% | 1.5% 2016 Popular vote | 51,496,682 | 40,402,790 Percentage | 53.8% | 42.4% As I said, anti-mandate. A party that got crushed in Senate elections still barely held onto enough votes to secure two out of nine lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, and they're appointing people who are young enough to last for multiple generations. Further, those two justices are almost certainly going to rule in favor of any attempts at disenfranchising voters such as gerrymandering, | ||
|
Howie_Dewitt
United States1416 Posts
On July 10 2018 07:56 KR_4EVR wrote: Absolutely ridiculous. The only criterion a S.C. judge needs is sole allegiance and adherence to the Constitution. The only possible other issue is Federal/court balance, but that issue passed the tipping point decades ago. Now, the half of society that prefers to control others (kill babies, take others' guns away, scream "you are haters!") rather than exercise self control (like, abstinence, self-defense, helping people in natural disasters) irresponsibly elects Supreme Court justices who do NOT listen to the original meaning of the constitution. THAT and only THAT is the reason why we have a political issue in the Supreme court at all. 1. If the only criterion a S.C. Justice needs is sole allegiance and adherence to the Constitution, then Merrick Garland (blocked not because of questions about whether he was lots to the Constitution or not, but because McConnell decided that the confirmation should wait until the next presidency. 2. Killing babies not what pro-choice activists are trying to do, and anyone who seriously thinks so is either tragically misguided or ignoring logic for the purpose of attacking an opposing ideology. People who self-identify as pro-choice believe that someone should not be forced to carry a fetus (which cannot survive as a functioning human) to term when they are not capable of giving the child a chance to have a successful life (not enough money, unstable familial situation, etc. can seriously disrupt the lives of children). Birthing a child into a life of suffering, if it can be stopped, should be. Unless you want to create a program to also support mothers of these children to make sure the child isn't suffering as described, you're a hypocrite. If you think every life is valuable, then stop taking your eyes off of the children as soon as they get a birth certificate. 3. How fitting that you mention abstinence over birth control, while also adhering to an originalist view of the Constitution. Birth control is a tool to help you exercise self-control and increase the amount of choices you have (now you can choose to have sex without being at risk of impregnation), unless you're a Luddite who hisses at technology. Taking the Constitution as it was written, by founders who had slaves and did not have enough opposition to slavery to free them immediately, would mean re-accepting slavery. Additionally, every amendment created after the bill of rights should not have existed. Without explaining this problem with your argument, you leave yourself open; and I'll gladly poke holes in your logic until it looks like swiss cheese. 4. I'm not even going to go into the "helping people during natural disasters" part, because that's not even self-control. That's controlling others by assigning the government to control how much aid they receive. Did I mention Deomcrats were the main party to brutalize Native Americans, treat Black-skin-colored people as dirt, establish Jim crow laws, fight to return Jewish imigrants to Germany in WWII, steal land from Mexico, force sterilization on mentally disabled people, and profit from modernized inner-city plantations? But they just blame it on others. Their memory is too short. Oh and BTW it was Democrats who opposed the first Black man to be an the Supreme Court. I'm glad you put forth such a garbage argument. It makes my job easy. 5. Back when native Americans were universally laughed away from any discussion of equal rights, the Republican party was the progressive party. Progressives of today would not have been Democrats back then. They would have been Republicans back then. Supporting today's Democratic Party does not imply support for the Democratic Party back in the 1800's, and applying that logic backwards would mean that you support slavery (again) and the brutalization of Native Americans that you decried, because it was acceptable at the time of the founding of this country, regardless of the fact that what's acceptable has changed. I refuse to believe you are not intelligent enough to understand this, so I'll just assume that you either willfully neglected this understanding to make a point about how "MEAN AND EVIL DEMOCRATS ARE AAAAAA THEY MUST BE DESTROYED! CARTHAGO DELENDA EST!", or that you repeated the argument because you heard it once and assumed that whoever said it must have checked for inconsistency. Obviously, they did not. And it was Democrtats who changed the election of judges from 3/5 to 1/2 majority. Oh. But , like, "LOVE WINS", right? No. Such 'love' is worthless and will be deemed at the end of time as such. 6. If love is worthless, then stop loving the children of other people and trying to protect them. If you didn't mean "all love is worthless", then you would have meant that the love that gay and lesbian people have for each other is worthless, but not heterosexual love. Because that's okay. Not like these filthy homo freaks. I say that because "LOVE WINS" is a quote used to support the rights of gay and lesbian marriage, and if you didn't mean all love is worthless, then I would assume you meant "LOVE WINS" is worthless. That's why it is written, "You decorate the graves of the prophets and say, 'If we had lived in those days, we wouldn't have done THAT!'. Therefore this generation will be guilty of it all." Go ahead and mourn slavery while profiting from cheap illegal immigrant labour. Go ahead and mourn the plight of women while you empower countires to kill their unborn daughters. And go ahead and think that you're so righteous while you do it all, just because you are angry. I'm going to ignore the rest of the screeching from this section for a point I've already mentioned, because I want to get the point I'm making into your incredibly thick skull. 7. Gosh, letting whatever a countire is kill their unborn daughters sounds horrible, Mr. KR_4EVR. We should prevent the suffering of those lives, and make sure they're not cut short, right? Does that include making sure the child has enough to eat after it's born? No? That's not the same issue? To me, it sounds like those are the same issue, since both of those positions reduce the suffering of those people. But you only care until they're born, because then you can say "my job here is done" and wash your hands of those filthy poor people. Hypocritical and childish. Oh. I forgot to mention. It was leftist media that covered up the reality of mass starvation in the early days of communist Russia. But look at them today? They aren't even loyal to foreign countires anymore! The only people opposing Barrett are 1) people who have someone better in mind and 2) idiots who hate her for no other reason than the her Catholic faith persuation. Go ahead and believe in the "salvation" that will never come. Humans are so virtuous their cause is so 'just'. Or maybe, wake up and realize that there are only two parties in the USA. The party of selfishness (GOP) and the party of pure evil (DRC). 8. Having someone better in mind is not a bad thing. In fact, I'd say you just gave your opposition a good reason to oppose Barrett for any reason possible, because now they can say they found someone better, no matter how little the amount, and propose them, regardless of party. Not the best play on your part. 9. "HA, LOOK AT THOSE FOOLS ADVANCING A CAUSE THAT THEY THINK IS JUST. WHAT IDIOTS THEY MUST BE! IF ONLY THEY WERE ME; THEN, THEY COULD SEE CORRECTLY (I SEE PERFECTLY, BY THE WAY) THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT JUST, BUT THE OPPOSITE OF JUSTICE EMBODIED. GUFFAW!" Right here, you laughed at their concept of justice, but then presented the GOP as the only "just" choice. Since you obviously intended saying the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) was evil to say that the side of justice is really with the GOP, can't I just throw that same argument back at you with the parties reversed? I'd rather you just come out and say "I'm right and you're wrong," if that's the case. Instead, you let out some garbled phrases and empty platitudes about salvation (???) and justice (?????). I apologise in advance if the language I used in referring to this poster was too harsh. I can rewrite this to take out some of the personal insults, if that would be preferable. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22998 Posts
On July 11 2018 00:37 JimmiC wrote: Arming groups that were against capitalism. US arms, Iraq, USSR arms Iran. So on and so forth. They were also way more brutal to their own people. Stallin, depending on the historian you trust killed anywhere from 5 million to 60 million non combatants. There was some dick presidents, but none of them hold a candle to that. Arming groups against capitalism and arming groups against socialism aren't remotely equivalent just because they are both arming people. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 11 2018 00:07 gobbledydook wrote: I'm sure you would like a Proletariat Revolution, because that's what it sounds like. Class struggle, us vs them, and I suppose this leads to mass incarceration of the capitalist scum and labour camps, collective production and then, as history has shown us, general starvation. Its not like the US has a stellar history with labor groups. People forget how the Pinkertons were used to spy on and destroy labor unions and groups in the 1870s-1930s. Half the reason we have all these laws protecting unions is because of the violence and unrest caused by the robber barons and business owners trying to bust up unions. And this wasn’t some small level conflicts. We are talking full armed conflict to break up strikes. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2600 Posts
On July 11 2018 00:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Arming groups against capitalism and arming groups against socialism aren't remotely equivalent just because they are both arming people. From the socialist revolutionary's standpoint, obviously not. After all, if it's for the greater cause of Socialism, it's all righteous, and if it's done by the Great Evil, then it's bad. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22998 Posts
On July 11 2018 00:44 Plansix wrote: Its not like the US has a stellar history with labor groups. People forget how the Pinkertons were used to spy on and destroy labor unions and groups in the 1870s-1930s. Half the reason we have all these laws protecting unions is because of the violence and unrest caused by the robber barons and business owners trying to bust up unions. And this wasn’t some small level conflicts. We are talking full armed conflict to break up strikes. We traded the pursuit of positive peace for an acceptance of negative peace in many arenas, none perhaps more obvious to the wwc than labor unions. On July 11 2018 00:46 gobbledydook wrote: From the socialist revolutionary's standpoint, obviously not. After all, if it's for the greater cause of Socialism, it's all righteous, and if it's done by the Great Evil, then it's bad. socialism is good, capitalism is bad. Yes. Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Capitalism doesn't work without exploitation and oppression of vulnerable people, socialism does. EDIT: Let's not pretend capitalist actually believe this false equivalency either. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote: Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22998 Posts
On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote: Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote: roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22998 Posts
On July 11 2018 01:07 JimmiC wrote: I love how just skip over the killing of millions of his own people. You are the mirror of the people who argue that everything the USA did was justified because the USSR is so evil. You think the USSR was justified because the US is so evil. Also, do you not remember what it was like in the eastern European countries in the 80's and 90's? Not good, the poor didn't struggle like they do here, they died. The government made their opposition disappear, they didn't just pull them over more, or treat them worse in trials. They didn't have trials! I'm not going to engage with you on matters of history because that has proven to be completely fruitless and I have no desire to hopelessly try to educate you on it. I don't think murdering innocent people is justified regardless of who does it though so you don't have to keep repeating that argument either. On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote: Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. I found an argument where you'll vehemently stand up for minorities in the face of what you are able to perceive to be racism. How surprising that it would be an argument targeted at the inextricable connection between white supremacy and capitalism. I suppose the easiest way to address this though would be to point out that in an alternate universe it would be completely feasible for capitalism to be built upon the backs of some different othering. In this one it's white supremacy and it/capitalism are inextricable from one another on many levels, including but not limited to, wealth distribution. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote: Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. Your argument assumes a capitalist market is a pure meritocracy, which has never been the case. The markets devalue non-white labor simply because the white dominated market prefers to hire white workers. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
